ETC Texas Pipeline, a midstream gas gatherer and processor, and XTO Energy, an ExxonMobil subsidiary and upstream producer, signed a gathering and processing agreement with a dedication covering a multi-million-acre area of mutual interest in the Permian Basin. ETC claimed XTO must deliver all dedicated gas to ETC and could not transfer interests in the dedicated acreage without the buyer accepting the dedication, and sought over $1 billion in damages; XTO argued the dedication's property description was invalid under the statute of frauds.¹

The trial court granted XTO a take-nothing summary judgment on the statute of frauds and rejected ETC's damages on other grounds, including a limitation-of-liability clause. The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) affirmed the damages rulings but reversed on the statute of frauds and remanded (698 S.W.3d 915). Both sides petitioned in January 2025, settled, and on May 16, 2025 the Court granted their joint motion in part.

Two petitions for review from the Eleventh Court of Appeals in a contract dispute; disposed under Rule 56.3 on a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to settlement (May 16, 2025 orders). See the concurring opinion issued in No. 24-0206, Megatel C90-2, Inc. v. Bank of Utah.

XTO: when gas dedications create real-property interests subject to the statute of frauds, and whether courts may pick and choose the enforceable part of a property description. ETC: whether the damage-limitation clause, which begins "Notwithstanding," allowed recovery of direct damages measured by lost profits.¹

XTO Energy (Petitioner): gas dedications are real-property interests that need a valid description, and the multi-million-acre "bubble map" is invalid in its entirety.

ETC (Petitioner): the limitation-of-liability clause does not bar direct damages measured by lost profits.¹

Not applicable; the case ended on a motion.

None noted